For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
DiscussionWT:DYK
RulesWP:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Noms (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps & QueuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKsWP:DYKA
StatsWP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page, by a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
August 6 1
September 12 1
September 23 1
September 25 2 1
October 2 2
October 3 1
October 8 1 1
October 10 1
October 12 1
October 13 1 1
October 14 1
October 15 1
October 16 2 1
October 17 1
October 18 1
October 21 4
October 23 2 1
October 24 3
October 25 1
October 27 1
October 28 1
October 29 1 1
October 30 2 2
October 31 3 2
November 1 2 2
November 2 4 2
November 3 3 3
November 4 6 3
November 5 2 1
November 6 2 2
November 7 1 1
November 8 7 4
November 9 6 2
November 10 2 2
November 11 2 1
November 12 4 4
November 14 6 5
November 15 10 10
November 16 6 5
November 17 21 13
November 18 11 10
November 19 10 7
November 20 8 6
November 21 8 6
November 22 5 5
November 23 10 5
November 24 9 4
November 25 9 5
November 26 8 6
November 27 6 5
November 28 7 6
November 29 8 5
November 30 7 4
December 1 15 8
December 2 6 3
December 3 12 6
December 4 15 7
December 5 16 7
December 6 12 4
December 7 2 1
December 8 6 5
December 9 10 5
December 10 7 2
December 11 7 3
December 12 1
December 13 4 1
December 14
Total 339 196
Last updated 06:41, 14 December 2018 UTC
Current time is 06:42, 14 December 2018 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began or it became a good article (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. Any registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose); self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination (consider watchlisting your nomination page).

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing:
Official DYK criteria: DYK rules and supplementary guidelines
Unofficial guide: Learning DYK

To nominate an article

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.
For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.
I.
Create the nomination subpage.

Enter the article title in the box below and click the button. (To nominate multiple articles together, enter any or all of the article titles.) You will then be taken to a preloaded nomination page.


II.
Write the nomination.

On the nomination page, fill in the relevant information. See Template:NewDYKnomination and {{NewDYKnomination/guide}} for further information.

  • Not every line of the template needs to be filled in. For instance, if you are not nominating an image to appear with your hook, there is no need to fill in the image-related lines.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion.
III.

In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began (or, if a new Good Article, the date on which it became a GA), not the date on which you make the nomination.

  • At the top of that subsection (before other nominations already there, but below the section head and hidden comment) add {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Consider adding {{

    Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines and the WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide.

    To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:

    • Look through this page, Template talk:Did you know, to find a nomination you would like to comment on.
    • Click the "Review or comment" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage.
    • The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria.
    • To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

      Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

      If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
    • Save the page.

    If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.

    Frequently asked questions

    Backlogged?

    This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first (so that those hooks don't grow stale), it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions above).

    Where is my hook?

    If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on the approved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of the prep areas, promoted from prep to a queue, or is on the main page.

    If the nominated hook is in none of those places, then the nomination has probably been rejected. Such a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues for which any discussion had gone stale. If you think your nomination was unfairly rejected, you can query this on the DYK discussion page, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

    Search archived DYK nomination discussions

    Instructions for other editors

    How to promote an accepted hook

    • See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas for full instructions.
    • Hooks that have been approved are located on the approved nominations page.
    • In one window, open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to promote.
    • In another window, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
    • In the prep set...
      • Paste the hook into the hook area (be sure to not paste in that that)
      • Paste the credit information ({{DYKmake}} and/or {{DYKnom}}) into the credits area.
      • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted [[Jane Fonda]]", preview, and save
    • Back on DYK nomination page...
      • change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
      • change |passed= to |passed=yes
      • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted to Prep 3", preview, and save

    How to remove a rejected hook

    • Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
    • In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.

    How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue

    • Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
    • Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
      • View the edit history for that page
      • Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
      • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
    • Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
    • If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at
      • Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.

      Nominations

      Older nominations

      Articles created/expanded on August 6

      Claus Leininger

      Musiktheater im Revier
      Musiktheater im Revier

      Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 16:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

      • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough, long enough and within policy regarding neutrality, sourcing and close paraphrasing. The image is licensed and a good illustration. Volcanoguy 02:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from prep for further work on the hook per discussion at WT:DYK. Perhaps something hooky could be written about the subject himself. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Yoninah: Would the original hook work if "Ruhr-Scala" was pipe-linked as "Ruhr-Scala"? I just checked the article and unfortunately there's not really much else that's hook-worthy from the content, so we might need to work on this hook. @Gerda Arendt: Some questions about the article: in the lede section, is "profil" intentional or a typo of "profile"? Also, is there no information about what happened between his retirement and death? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
      He made a house at an impossible culture-less place (Ruhr) a success (La Scala), - I thought it was a brief summary. Yes, a typo, and don't mention the most unusual, contemporary opera, because we had it already, - some wordsmith, please. - No reason to say anything about his retirement if he possible simply enjoyed it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I think the hook would work if you explained it. I added something to the article along those lines: Alluding to La Scala, the house was nicknamed Ruhr-Scala at the time, reflecting its cultural offerings in what was essentially an industrial zone. If that was sourced somehow, we could have:
      • ALT2: ... that during Claus Leininger's tenure as general manager of the Musiktheater im Revier (pictured), the theatre was nicknamed "Ruhr-Scala" for upgrading the cultural offerings of what was essentially an industrial zone? Yoninah (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol confirmed.svg That's a much better hook, since the explanation adds to the hookiness (i.e. the contrasts between culture and being an industrial zone). To be honest, I had concerns about the original hook when promoting it, but had good faith that perhaps others could find it interesting. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Comment: Symbol possible vote.svg This was pulled by Fram in a now archived DYK talk page discussion about issues with the article. I did what Fram should have done and that is to reopen the discussion and now I will re-add it back to the nominations page. SL93 (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
      (ec) The thread is at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 153#Two hooks removed from Prep 5 (probably the next queue to hit the main page), - the concern being that the explanation is not sourced in the article. My 2ct: it's only an explanation for the hook without context, explaining what the links to Ruhr and La Scala provide anyway. I offered an ALT, to no avail so far:
      ALT3: ... that when Claus Leininger was general manager of the Musiktheater im Revier (pictured), he won international opera singers to perform in the Ruhr district?
      Revier is a colloquial term for the Ruhr district along the Ruhr river, btw. The name of the theatre is a program. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
      ps: best to have it pictured, to show that it isn't the typical opera house ;) - The first hook was approved in August, - it's perhaps the nom with the longest time between approval and appearance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
      ... only that the history is short, 1959 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

      Articles created/expanded on September 12

      Timeline of Cluj-Napoca

      1617 engraving of Cluj/Kolozsvár/Klausenburg by Joris Hoefnagel.
      1617 engraving of Cluj/Kolozsvár/Klausenburg by Joris Hoefnagel.
      • ... that throughout its long timeline the city of Cluj-Napoca was part of many empires and kingdoms, including Roman Empire, Hungarian Kingdom, Habsburg Monarchy, Austria-Hungary and Kingdom of Romania ...? Source: "MacKendrick, Paul Lachlan (2000). The Dacian Stones Speak. Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies (illustrated, reprint ed.). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press."; Source: "Lukács, József (2005). Povestea "oraşului-comoară": scurtă istorie a Clujului şi a monumentelor sale [The story of the "treasure-city": a short history of Cluj and its monuments] (in Romanian). Levente Várdai. Cluj-Napoca: Apostrof. ISBN 978-973-9279-74-1. "

      5x expanded by Codrinb (talk). Self-nominated at 20:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC).

      • Symbol delete vote.svg Not eligible. List articles must have at least 1,500 characters of readable prose in order to qualify for DYK. Catrìona (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol possible vote.svg This appears to be only the nominator's fifth nomination, and given that the article itself is long (the problem is that the content is presented as a list while DYK's length requirement only applies to prose), this could still work as a hook. @Codrinb: I would suggest you expand the lede section to be a summary of the whole article, ensuring that it is at least 1,500 characters. Once this is done, this can become DYK eligible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
      Hi all. Thank you for the feedback. I put a lot of work into this article and I will be happy to make anything that is necessary to make it eligible. Thank you for giving me a chance, @Narutolovehinata5:. The main reason for not expanding the lead more is to keep it "in sync" and consistent with all the other articles in Category:Timelines of cities in Europe. If you look at Timeline of London or Timeline of Frankfurt, they have a similar lead. If you think that I should deviate from this, in order to achieve DYK, I will do it. I will also ping @M2545: and other users involved with such lists, perhaps there are other examples of DYK or longer leads. Thanks! Codrin.B (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      Hi again, I have added a new lead as requested. Please let me know if this works. Thanks. Codrin.B (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      To try and help push the DYK along I have edited the article's lead. It is now at 1,623 characters. I hope that helps! --Elonka 22:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


      Hook eligiblity:

      • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
      • Interesting: Green tickY
      • Other problems: Red XN - The grammar in the hook is weird. Roman Empire needs a definite article, as do some of the others.

      Image eligibility:

      QPQ: None required.

      Overall: Symbol question.svg Is this one of your first five DYK noms? Catrìona (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

      @Catrìona: This is the nominator's fifth nomination so no QPQ is necessary yet; however, their next DYK and beyond will require a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
      Thanks for the feedback. What is QPQ? ;-) How about this text and new image:
      Cluj coat of arms, awarded in 1377.

      Codrin.B: I would accept that if the caption were significantly shorter. 8 lines is too many. Catrìona (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

      Hi @Catrìona:. I removed less important aspects from the lead and kept the core ideas. The lead is now around 1800 characters. I hope this is acceptable. Thanks.Codrin.B (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
      Ah, you were talking about the image caption... I never intended it to be so long. I just added the image previously with the caption I used elsewhere. To goal was to check if this image is better. I trimmed down the caption as well now. Codrin.B (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol confirmed.svg I recommend the wording "throughout its long history" rather than "throughout its long timeline". Catrìona (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
      The reason I used "timeline" is to differentiate from the History of Cluj-Napoca article, which I might also work on to get it to a DYK, and also to be inline with the article title: "Timeline of Cluj-Napoca". But certainly "history" sounds better. I am fine if it has to be changed for the DYK. Thanks. Codrin.B (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

      Symbol possible vote.svgI'm a little concerned at the amount of unsourced content here. An entry about Hadrian becoming Emperor may not need a source, but an entry about a redlinked individual such as Flavius Italicus does, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

      Actually all governors of province Dacia come out of the List of Roman governors of Dacia Traiana which in turn uses this reference: Petolescu, Constantin C. (2014). Dacia: un mileniu de istorie [Dacia: a millennium of history] (in Romanian). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. ISBN 978-973-27-2450-7.. I expected that this could be an issue so I started to add individual references for each governor. Thanks for bringing it up. Codrin.B (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
      @Vanamonde93:, @Catrìona:, @Narutolovehinata5: - I finalized adding references to all legates, procurators and other leaders from 2nd and 3rd century. From my perspective, while it could be further improved, the article is quite well sourced for all the centuries and from a wide variety of sources. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to make this better and get it approved. Thanks. Codrin.B (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg It's been over two weeks without any of the previous reviewers returning; a new reviewer would be welcome. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol question.svg - Length, Date, Earwigs, and QPQ exempt check. However while the article has many more citations (thank you Codrin.B for your work here) some of the facts in the hook regretfully do not have cites - for example the city being included in the Treaty of Karlowitz (Hapsburg), being part of Austria-Hungary, and the Hungarian Kingdom. Once those are added/clarified, we should be good to go. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
      Ok, thanks @Mifter:. I will work on those references as well.Codrin.B (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

      Articles created/expanded on September 23

      Conquest Brigade

      Foundation of the Conquest Brigade in 2013
      Foundation of the Conquest Brigade in 2013
      • ... that the Conquest Brigade (pictured) was described as "moderate Islamist" group, despite closely cooperating with ISIL and supporting the extermination of a religious minority in Syria? Source: "Noteworthy also from the fall of the Mannagh airbase is a video released by the battalion Liwa al-Fatah, described by one writer as a "moderate Islamist" group. A quick glance at the video quickly demonstrates that in analysis, the term "moderate Islamist" in this context is quite meaningless. First, Abu Jandal al-Masri, the leader of the JMWA contingent--identified immediately by the speaker who filmed the video as synonymous with ISIS--is seen to be embracing a member of Liwa al-Fatah. Abu Jandal then proclaims, "I swear by God we will not leave a single Alawite alive in Syria... state of Islam, state of the Caliphate." This is all proclaimed to the assent of "God is great" from the other fighters, including the Liwa al-Fatah member who filmed the video." (The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, pp. 24, 25)

      Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 19:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

      QPQ: Done.

      Overall: Symbol voting keep.svg You need to include (pictured) somewhere in the hook to attach a picture. Catrìona (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

      Added "pictured" and QPQ. Applodion (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

      Symbol possible vote.svg This was pulled from the main page by Stephen due to sourcing issues raised at WP:ERRORS. As the article was up for less than an hour, it probably deserves a second chance, but right now a lot of work needs to be done if this is to return to DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

      @Narutolovehinata5: Frankly, I do not understand the problem. The source is reliable and clear about the issue, and it is inline-sourced. Further sources for the hook are given in the article, for example the Historical Dictionary of Islamic Fundamentalism clearly states that the group's members were "aligning themselves with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) for a time". Applodion (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
      As the main criticism was about the hook being too broad, how about: ALT1: ... that the Conquest Brigade (pictured) was described by one writer as "moderate Islamist" group, despite closely cooperating with ISIL and supporting the extermination of a religious minority in Syria? (same source) Applodion (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
      Well, I have no idea what the "sourcing issues" actually were, but ALT1 seems OK to me because it alleviates the concern about "moderate Islamist" a label that the source criticizes. Catrìona (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
      The problem was that the editor who reported the "sourcing issues" never replied to my question about what exactly the problem was; another editor suggested that it was due to the original hook not being clear enough. Anyway, I hope that it will be ok this time thanks to the tweak. Applodion (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
      @Applodion: Have you tried talking to the editor again on what those sourcing issues were? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @Applodion: It's been several weeks now. If the issues can't be resolved here, this will be marked for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      @Narutolovehinata5: Well, I guess that would be the best course of action. Applodion (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      @Applodion: Do you at least remember which editor was the one who brought up the sourcing issues? Maybe you can try talking to them one more time and see if things can still be resolved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      @Narutolovehinata5: Yes, it was Black Kite, as seen here. The explanation of the removal, as stated on the archived page here, was "It's vital to know who said this 'cos if it was my nan who said it, why should it be important? If, however, it was Kofi Annan, for example, well that's a different matter." Applodion (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      Er, as far as I can see, the sentence "By 2013, the militia was considered to be "moderate Islamist" in its views by some observers, though it already exhibited strong links to ISIL by this stage.", still doesn't have a source attached, and still doesn't say who the "some observers" were. Also pinging Stephen as the admin who pulled the nomination. Is there a completely different hook we could use? It's a good article, and it'd seem a shame not to use it. Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


      Articles created/expanded on September 25

      Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews

      Created by Pharos (talk) and Piotrus (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 11:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

      • Symbol voting keep.svg Article is new enough and long enough. So many sources are offline or in different languages that I will blanket AGF on them. It looks like everything is sourced inline. QPQ is done. Hook seems reasonably supported by the article and interesting. Didn't find any plagiarism or copyvio in a few searches. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed for ALT1, which was suggested after the discussion at WT:DYK. Yoninah (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Comment. ALT1 is not correct. The controversy is about whether the time period can be called a Golden Age for Jews in Poland, or if that exaggerates the situation of the Jews. The controversy is not settled so don't go for one option in Wikipedia's voice. It might be better to go with something like the lead sentence at the Polish version of the page: "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews is a proverb sarcastically describing the society of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." That sticks to the facts. Please read about the multiple meanings of the proverb here. Then consider whether, with the current worries about anti-semitism in Poland, you want to put this proverb on the main page. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I am totally ok with ALT2 as proposed by StarryGradnma, I just hope it's not too long. It should contain no controversial facts, nor be in inappropriate tone. For referencing purposes, it is described as a proverb here: [1], and as satirical, here: [2], and neither of those two terms have been disputed on talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Note that the Polish wiki article was created (by Piotrus) after this one was created and was edited by Piotrus and one other editors (this edit). There are still serious NPOV issues with the article (and reverts to keep the tag out), and notability/OR concerns for the full phrase (e.g. - the title of the article (present in the hook) - the phrase in this form is not present in any English language source covering this antisemitic proverb). As for what this means, this is - an "anti-Semitic phantasm" per this, a "pasquinade" that is "saying that Jews had it “too good.”" per [3], "'17th-century polemic concept condemning the rampant prevalence of infidels" per [4]. As for modern POV - Piotr Wróbel clearly makes clear the various viewpoints around this - On the one hand, most Poles firmly believe that Poland has always been one of the most tolerant countries in the world and that antiSemitism has existed only on the margins of Polish society. As far as they are concerned, there has been no such phenomenon as Polish anti-Semitism, for Poland has always been a true paradisus Judeorum. On the other hand, most Jews, especially those on the American continent and in Western Europe, claim that Poland is one of the most anti-Semitic countries in the world. Jews have often shared the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's belief that virtually all Poles received their anti-Semitism "with their mothers' milk."[5]. This is not merely an "exaggeration" - it was a call for action against the relative (still overall wretched [6]) safety of Jews in Poland (until 1648) vs. the rest of Europe - the "paradise" being the relative lack of persecutions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
        Icewhiz, with all due respect, what is the point of your rant? Nobody except you supports either the POV or OR claims. You haven't even clearly suggested what POV issues are in the article, as in, you haven't said 'this claim is not-neutral, and this other claim is missing'. We have added the relatively fringe claim (by a minor scholar, in a minor journal) that the expression "Paradise for Jews" is anti-semitic, but it is clear as day that a ton of other scholars and media sources are using it and nobody thinks it is a major issue. Anyway, this is an issue to be discussed on artice's talk, where, I'll note, nobody supports you (so yeah, the tags removed from the article because you are in minority). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
        I presented 4 sources above, not one, demonstrating the NPOV issue here (here's another - " its title is taken from an anti-Jewish text, which claims that the good living conditions Jews enjoyed in Poland were something that should change" [7]). As for "nobody supports you" -this was pulled from the DYK queue for this reason. You yourself removed the various tags (e.g. here) - without consensus on the talk page for doing so.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
        All the issues / sources you have raised here have been discussed on article's talk, where nobody supports you. Many of your sources and arguments HAVE been incorporated into the text, through there is no consensus for the tags you've added, as nobody besides you wants them re-added - likely because, again, all the issues you've raised have been incorporated in the article. If you dissent against the consensus, well, there's no veto power on Wikipedia, through as I noted on your talk page, you are more than welcome to edit the article yourself. I encourage you, again, to edit the article, as well as to propose a hook that you'd think would be more neutral, if you have concerns about proposed hook ALT1 or ALT2. PS. Since you quote from [8], I will note that your quote is sadly out of context. Interested readers would be well advised to take a look at the entire page 12 of the pdf. To put this in broader context: "...formulated in this manner, the accusation that the authors of the Polin exhibition have not taken into account “modern historical studies,” ignores the immense research fndings and the latest achievements of Jewish historiography... Emblematic here is the criticism against one of the most distinguished experts on the history of Jews in Poland in the modern period, Moshe Rosman. He was accused of “Polinizng” the history of Jews in Poland by promoting a false and ideologized version of it with the myth of Poland as a “paradise of tolerance.”" Long story short, the academic debate about this topic, as well as whether this phrase is anti-semitic, or much more nuanced, is ongoing, and any attempt to simply it is not helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        There is no disagreement in the academic literature that the full phrase is highly antisemitic. There are however uses of the sub-phrase "Paradisus Judeorum" which are not. As for discussion on the article talk page on POV, I believe it was limited to me and you, and that you yourself removed the tag - despite there being a clear lack of consensus (1 vs. 1) regarding POV. I chose not to engage in edit warring over the tag, despite the removal of the tag being highly irregular. The article has severe NPOV and notability (for the full phrase) issues. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        That's your OR not backed up by any sources. A single scholar has stated that the two-word part of the proverb, "Jewish Paradise" is antisemitic. Nobody else said this, clearly, about the proverb or that part, instead numerous scholars use it without any reference to anything but the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. Ex. this is Gershon Hundert's use of the proverb and discussion of the related topic Paradisus Judaeorum: A central theme of this paper will be my attempt to diffuse some of the darkness, lachrymosity and sense that the experience of Jews in Poland was of unending pogrom and persecution. I shall argue that this is a story characterized by light and not darkness, by life and not death. If one had to choose a single word to reflect the experience of Jews in Poland, it would be vitality. That and an indomitably positive sense of self. The Polish Jewish community was vibrant, creative, proud and self-confident: sevurim hem deyabashta hava veleika galuta, they thought they were on dry land and not in exile. Their neighbours knew this as well, referring to Poland as Paradisus Judaeorum, rajem dla Zyd6w. The full expression went: 'Poland is heaven for the nobility, hell for the peasants and paradise for Jews'.[4] This is hyperbole of course, but I am emphasizing the brighter side as a corrective to the predominant popular image of the Jewish experience in Polish lands, which seems to me altogether too dismal and to be profoundly coloured by events in the twentieth century. This is my primary goal; my secondary purpose is to complicate your perception. Hundert, Gershon David (1997). "Poland: Paradisus Judaeorum". Journal of Jewish Studies. 48 (2): 335–348. doi:10.18647/2003/JJS-1997. ISSN 0022-2097. Nothing about anti-semitism of the proverb in his discussion. This is the representative use and discussion of the proverb, not the pretty recent and fringe accusation of a single scholar (Janicka) that it is antisemitic. Feel free to publish a paper that it is a "highly antisemitic saying", then we will have a source to consider. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Comment 2 To spell this out more clearly: This Polish proverb comes from the period of increasing feudalism in Poland, with the nobility taking over control of towns and land, worsening conditions for everyone else. It was not meant kindly for either the nobility or the Jews. The proverb links the Jews with the oppressors of the Polish people. At a time of increasing Polish antisemitism I suggest we NOT put this on the main page. StarryGrandma (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @StarryGrandma: Please note that WP:NOTCENSORED. If an article is neutral, and the hook is neutral, and the article is eligible, there are no reasons not to put this on the front page. The article is now doing a better job explaining some controversies and issues about this proverb, which should help educate the readers about some aspects of antisemitism. Talking about such issues is better than ignoring them. In fact, I am surprised that my ALT1 hook proposal has not been endorsed by those wary of antisemitic POV, as it explicitly draws attention to this very issue, by pointing out that the proverb is not exactly neutral. ==Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • If we are to place a highly antisemtic Polish saying on the main page - quoted in full - it is not sufficient to say it is "exaggerated" or "sarcastic" - we should explicitly spell out that this was an antisemitic polemic saying.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • With the note that you are the only person in the world calling this 'a highly antisemitic Polish saying', I am open to reviewing your proposed hook. Just please make sure any claims you make in it are sourced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Piotrus, Wikipedia is not censored, which is exactly why there are whole categories of articles that never appear on the main page and of images that will never be chosen as featured picture of the day. In this case it is because the topic is currently sensitive and will remain so. And, while in the queue, an American gunman murdered 11 people in a synagogue. The timing would have been unfortunate if the DYK had appeared on Nov 8, so soon afterward. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @StarryGrandma: I lived in Pittsburgh, I know people who knew people who died there, and I still see no connection between publishing a hook related to Jews and this. There are limits to political correctness, and again, fortunately, Wikipedia is not censored. That said, it is likely this hook won't be on Main Page till December. And in either case, I doubt anyone would really make associations like that, particularly as the anti-semitism in this proverb is very slight. It is a simple exaggeration, and that's a far cry from hate. (Of course, anything can be abused, but this is not our fault). The proverb has been used much more in bening contest than in hate speech; in fact nobody has even shown an example of it being used in modern times in hate speech. You yourself just found a reference I quote above where this proverb is used in a positive context, as reference to vitality of the Jewish culture of the Golden Age of Jews in Poland period. It is exactly this positive association that we should focus on. Instead of worrying about sending a wrong message, we should focus on sending the right one. Something like with an alt that would say that "one of the meanings of the proverb is to reference the Golden Age of Jews in the Middle Ages".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @StarryGrandma: I like to think that the article that I started is not such toxic antisemitism bait. I think quality articles on Polish-Jewish history are a good thing for the world still, and this is not one of the tropes that has been exploited by the current wave of hate.--Pharos (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg I would pull this nomination. There's an RM going on for the page, as well as a neutrality discussion on the Talk page. Concerns were also expressed at the DYK Talk page here: [9]. It's not suitable for mainpage at this time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I strongly disagree with any suggestion this topic is not legible for a DYK. We should of course wait for RM to finish, as well as to make sure that there is no edit warring and that the article is stable. Unless the topic is deleted, there is no reason for it not to be DYKed, after suitable delay that ensured the article and hook are free of problems. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • If the RM is not successful, and the article continues to be on this full phrase which is lacking viable sources (as opposed to the narrower "Paradisus Judeorum" concept which is covered in a secondary manner) - I intend to take this to AfD as a NOTDICTIONARY and GNG fail. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Shrug. There's no deadline, so if you want to waste the community's time with an AfD on that (which is likely, given the RM doesn't have much support), sure. This DYK can wait a few weeks for those issues to be resolved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • NPOV Fail - When editors remove the anti-semitic context of this saying - The term Paradisus Judaeorum [Paradise for Jews] has been present in Polish culture since the 17th century. It comes from an anonymous text expressing anti-gentry and anti-Jewish sentiments, which was published in Latin in 1606 and titled Paskwiliusze na królewskim weselu podrzucone [Lampoons planted at the royal wedding party]. The anonymous writer uses the phrase Paradisus Judaeorum to express his conviction that Poland is ruled by Jews and that they enjoy excessive privileges - from a cited reference [10] supporting the stmt (in a passage filled with 17th, 18th, and 19th century references) - we are repeating hate speech in Wikipedia's voice without context. Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • This claim wasn't removed - you duplicated it, it was already and is still present in the article, in another section. But your attitude towards a normal copyediting edit ("ITS TRYING TO HIDE ANTISEMITISM") is a good illustration of the issue here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • When anti-X (semitism/Jewish) appears in the article not in the lede, not in the first section, but tucked somewhere in the middle in an attributed manner - this is a shameful state for an article on 17th century hate speech, primarily known for being hate speech. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
            • This is because "17th century hate speech, primarily known for being hate speech" are your OR claims. It's not like anyone is preventing you from adding this claim to the lead - with reliable sources. You haven't done that. You can hardly expect we will add this claim to the article, referencing User:Icewhiz on Wikipedia... The lead does, of course, represent what the sources say, i.e. " The "Paradise for Jews" part of the proverb, which refers to the Golden Age of Jews in Poland,[5][6] has been criticized as exaggerating the position of Jews in the Commonwealth society, which was not that comparable to the most privileged class, the nobility." Not you, nor anyone else has disputed this characterization on article's talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Comment. If this phrase or any part of it was highly antisemitic, it wouldn't be used by POLIN Museum as the name of its exhibition for the Golden Age of Jews in Poland ([11]): In the Paradisus Iudaeorum gallery, visitors [...] will explore a large map of Jewish settlement in the Commonwealth, and will find out what religious tolerance meant in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and why Poland came to be known as “Paradisus Iudaeorum” – a Jewish paradise Let's have some common sense here. Scholars agree it is an exaggeration, but exaggeration is not anti-semitism. A single scholar has made such a claim, dozens of others do not agree with such an association and the phrase continues to be generally used in the positive (Golden Age) context. A WP:FRINGE statement by a single scholar should not be taken with undue weight; other scholars noted before and after that is is an exaggeration, but that's making mountains out of molehills, and per sources cited in the article, usage of this phrase to refer to Golden Age is much more common that any discussion of antisemitism (again: only one scholar has called this phrase antisemitic, dozens of others have used it in a positive Golden Age context, and again, the POLIN Museum doesn't even think this issue needs any clarification on their webpage). And to further stress the fringiness of this view, see [12] which includes a review of her article (which got reprinted in a book), and the reviewer, Piotr Wróbel, says the following: "Janicka is not shy about presenting risky historical interpretations and claims". See the referenced discussion in the article for more details. Longer version is: Janicka, a minor if reliable scholar, has been very critical of the museum exhibition, and thinks it minimizes the issue of antisemitism. Other scholars have disagreed with her or taken a more neutral stance, and nobody repeated her assertion that this exhibit title/phrase is particularly problematic (i.e. antisemitic). As noted in [13]: "a heated debate surrounded the name of the gallery". One scholar called the name antisemitic, but one scholar's fringe opinion should not be given undue weight, even if one Wikipedian seems to be fixated on it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol voting keep.svg It meets the requirements for DYK, article is neutral, and so is the hook. Support ALT2 for the hook as it's most hook-y. The objections appear to be spurious and may be motivated by personal issues between Icewhiz and other editors. Volunteer Marek 22:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol possible vote.svg I have reverted the promotion to a preparation area as per discussions at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Flibirigit (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
      Comment This saying does not belong bolded on Wikipedia's front page. And for God's sake it's almost Chanukah. That would be pretty, eh? valereee (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
      Why not? It's a Polish Jewish history topic about a saying that despite claims to the contrary is NOT controversial (find me a single newspaper piece that says it is... instead of the dozen+ presented that use it without a second thought to refer to the Golden Age of Jews in Poland). In fact, it would be a very good Chanukah DYK, since it is a good time to display hooks related to Jewish topics. And it would be good if people would stop with the WP:INDONTLIKEIT. Again, no media source has ever been critical of this saying, instead it is used to remind people of the Golden Age of the Jewish history. If anything is antisemitic here, it's not the saying, it is an attempt to censor the Jewish history topics of the front page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
      From the article: 'The author of the 1606 pasquinade is unknown, through it has been suggested by Stanisław Kot that it was created by a Catholic townsman, perhaps a priest, jealous of the nobility and the Jewry. Konrad Matyjaszek has described the 1606 work as "expressing anti-gentry and anti-Jewish sentiments"' It has nothing to do with me liking it or not. I'm happy to have Jewish history on the front page, and the topic certainly deserves an article. I'll take it on good faith that the article has been sourced from neutral historians with a variety of viewpoints, and that their analysis has been represented fairly by its editors. My concern is that it this proverb has antisemitic roots, and that makes it as inappropriate for the front page as any other derogatory phrase for a group of people

      The Nature of Prejudice

      Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 11:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

      • Symbol possible vote.svg -- there is work to do here. For starters, it would be nice to have sections. And the book cover. Second, it needs a copy edit; I made a few obvious ones, but I note that the third paragraph starts with a grammatical error. In the second note the book title needs to be italicized; etc. Oh, the claim in the last sentence needs to be ascribed to someone; we can't be saying it I suppose a summary of the book isn't mandatory, but it would be nice--it's what we expect from a book article. Now, the hook is verified, the article is new enough and long enough and I smell no plagiarism, but it needs serious cleanup. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Why I don't disagree with you, the issues you are raising are IMHO irrelevant to the DYK (now, if this was a WP:GAN, you'd be dead right). Quality issues like this are not part of the DYK requirements. I am of course happy if people would like to expand things, but I don't believe it is necessary. Btw, I don't see the grammar error. Also, I don't see the need for attribution (the sentence is cited, after all). Lastly, academic books don't have plot summary sections, the content of the book is already summarized. I guess we could add a chapter list? PS. I did add an infobox (through again, it is not required for a DYK; it's not like I am self-assessing this article any higher than start, maybe C-class...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Piotrus, we've danced this dance before. I'm happy you wrote this up, it's important, but if we're putting it on the front page it should be representative of our quality. The grammar error is in "Describing the book significance"--needs to have a genitive for "book". I didn't say "plot summary", I said summary, and the only thing the article says about the book is the one sentence about some scale. The rest is all caught up inside reviewers' remarks. Having a summary is a Good Thing. I don't care about the infobox, BTW, though lots of people do. And the attribution, that is necessary. That it's cited is beside the point: what matters is that an opinion is cited ("One of the reasons for its success"), and it may be a very reasonable and well-argued opinion, but it's not a fact. Thus, attribution. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Drmies Yes, we danced this indeed, and as I am sure I said it before, your standards are too high for DYK. If you see a grammar error, please fix it. I am not a native speaker and occasionally I don't see them. I stand by what I said - all your other requests, while all beneficial to the article (except the attribution, which I say is not needed through harmless) are not required for this to be on the front page. If you have a problem with that, try changing DYK requirements/guidelines. Ping User:BlueMoonset for 3O. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
        Well, I am not a native speaker either, and I'm not your copyeditor. Yngvadottir, thank you so much for looking over the article, and for the attribution--which of course is necessary, given NPOV. Good day Piotrus. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed; check should include whether the article still needs a copy edit. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
      I looked, and don't think we can have a book article not saying (besides the lead which should be a summary) who wrote it when and why and about what. All reviews are interesting only in relation to that. - Formally, under a section header, a person's name should be repeated, so probably also a book's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
      Added a sentence on author/date in the main body. I don't recall any source discussing why the author chose this topic, I am afraid. (Probably he found in interesting, like most authors writing about whatever they chose...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

      Symbol possible vote.svg There is work to do here.

      1. Article creation date and length are appropriate.
      2. The hook has issues. "Is considered a seminal work on prejudice" seems weasel-worded despite the citation. The hook should describe who viewed the book as seminal. Aspects of the book's content would make an even better hook, since they are more obviously neutral.
      3. The article's sources are reliable, but its neutrality has issues. Please clarify using reliable sources that the book was universally acclaimed from its publication, or describe major disagreements with and shortcomings of the book.
      4. Finally, please report your QPQ.

      La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

      @La comadreja: QPQ is already out there. I don't see the what is a neutrality issue. ALL reviews I've found are positive, and praise this work highly. I'd be happy to include critical reviews - if you could only point them out to me? I think given the level of praise cited, seminal is fine, but if you'd prefer, here is an alt:
      ALT1: that the 1954 book The Nature of Prejudice is considered a classic that defined the field of intergroup relations?
      It should also address the issue of saying more about the book contents through its link to intergroup relations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

      2018 National League Central tie-breaker game, 2018 National League West tie-breaker game

      Created by Muboshgu (talk), Spanneraol (talk), Mdumas43073 (talk), and Eposty (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 03:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

      • The above noms have redundant highlighted links and WP:EASTEREGGs. I think we should use informative links for the readers as suggested below. Any comments?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
      • The editing seems to be winding down and limited to the aftermath at this point. However, we now know the aftermath will not conclude until the season is over. I am actually quite shocked that the article is being presented without any mention that the Rockies were going for their first ever NL West title, which is as important as the Dodgers being 5x defending champs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I realize that there is a whole featured topic of these to be modeled after, but I think each article should say Team A was going for their Xth National League Division title and Yth National League Foo Division title (if the team has moved divisions like the Cubs) for each team.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
      • The above are suggestions. However, here is the review:
      Both articles are long enough and new enough.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
      I prefer the ALT2 that I have nominated to the other noms and consider this an interesting, well-formed hook.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
      Content is within policy.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
      There are still no QPQ reviews presented.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
      Although I am not sure why, there are no images. It would seem to me that some biographical photos could be included, but I realize there are probably no photos from the game to include.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
      Can we get a citation for "This game was also in fact the first National League divisional tiebreaker ever to not involve the Dodgers."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      I don't know who added that sentence, and can't find a source saying that, so I deleted it. I'll do qpq shortly. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
      Isn't there a page somewhere on the internet that lists all NL tie-breaker results historically?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
      The best appears to be this. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
      Which points out to me that the statement I removed was false, because the Dodgers were not involved in 1998 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
      I thought divisional tie-breakers and Wild Card tie-breakers were different things. Why would a Wild Card tie-breaker invalidate the prior statement?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
      @TonyTheTiger: I had forgotten about this nom. You're right, it doesn't invalidate it, because of the "divisional" qualifier. But that's too trivial anyway. A tiebreaker is a tiebreaker. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      @Muboshgu: we are not really tasked with determining what is trivial. We summarize the secondary sources. If they are mentioning it, we should mention it. I consider it significant (but I am a lifelong Dodger fan).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
      @TonyTheTiger: Agreed, but it was a Wikipedia editor who added it and I couldn't find it in secondary sources, which is the reason I removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol possible vote.svg NL West still omits possibly the biggest leadup story that the Rockies were going for their first NL West title.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
        • This looks good now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
          • However, the source also presents a fairly juicy fact that this was the first time in club history that they made the post season in consecutive years. Isn't that also worth a mention.--11:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
      • The treatment of the 163rd game is uncited in both articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Most of the Dodger aftermath is uncited.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Parts of the NLC aftermath and background are uncited.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
        • This is fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
        • @TonyTheTiger: NL West article now mentions the Rockies never winning a division title. Dodgers aftermath sourced. One bit of trivia I couldn't find talked about by reliable sources was removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
      • This is mostly cleaned up. I have two posted questions about content above. Consider addressing them or responding as to why they are unnecessary.-

        Lapa do Santo

        View from the rockshelter entrance
        View from the rockshelter entrance
        • ALT1 that Lapa do Santo, in Minas Gerais, Brazil, has evidence of human occupation around 12,000 years ago, as well as the oldest recorded case of decapitation in the Americas? Source: [15] [16]
        Reviewed The Sensorites

        Created by Strauss MAE-USP (talk). Nominated by Mike Peel (talk) at 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC).


        Policy compliance:

        QPQ: Done.

        Overall: Symbol question.svg epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

        @Epicgenius: Thanks for the review. Can you have another look? I've proposed a longer hook, ALT1, above. @Strauss MAE-USP: has added references. The similar phrases look minimal to me, are there particular ones you think need rewriting? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
        @Strauss MAE-USP and Mike Peel: ALT1 looks much better. I definitely might be interested by the first recorded decapitation in the Americas. So you have my thumbs up for that one. I really only have three concerns with copyvios, and here they are:
        • "the reduction of the body by means of mutilation, defleshing, tooth removal, exposure to fire and possibly cannibalism, followed by the secondary burial of the remains according to strict rules" - possibly unattributed direct quote
        • "the oldest case of decapitation in the New World" and "were filled with disarticulated bones of a single" - these phrases are too close to the quoted text, even a paraphrase would be good.
        • "three distinct periods of human occupation" - same as above from this source.
        That's all of the phrases I was concerned about. Now for the sourcing:
        • "The rockshelter and the archaeological site" doesn't have any sources. A general rule of thumb is to aim for at least one source per paragraph.
        • "Mobility" still doesn't have any sources.
        • The ends of many paragraphs don't have sources. In some cases only the first sentence has a source. On the other hand, all of the references look reliable and authoritative. My issue is with the placement of the sources. Could you move them to the end of the paragraph?
        That's all of the outstanding DYK issues. Now going off on a few personal style nitpicks:
        • Although not necessary, I'd also suggest cleaning up this article to comply with some MOS guidelines. For instance, putting the periods before the references.
        • I'm concerned that there are way too many images in this article (there are 231 in total, but only about 4 thumbnail images, the rest are in galleries). WP:NOTGALLERY. Have you considered creating a gallery on Commons?
        Sorry to bother you with all these issues. I know it sounds like a lot, but from the looks of it, this article probably does not need that many modifications to get it into good shape for DYK. On a personal note, I am impressed by Strauss MAE-USP's work on this article with over 25 kB of prose size. Maybe this can be nominated as a good article later. epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
        @Epicgenius: sorry for the delay in following this up. I've sorted out the copyvio issues, and quickly checked through the style formatting. I don't think that a gallery on commons would be useful (they fell out of style on Commons quite a while back now), although I'd agree that there are too many pictures here right now. I started this nom after seeing @Strauss MAE-USP's work here, I don't know the subject myself, so I can't help with improving the referencing so much. Maybe @Joalpe: can help there? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
        @Mike Peel: It's OK. I'm still monitoring this nomination. So far it doesn't look like there has been much activity on the page since I last commented. I'll give it a few more weeks before I ask someone else to look at this. epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
        @Mike Peel, Strauss MAE-USP, and Joalpe: Has there been any progress on this article? I know that the comments above might seem like a lot, but there are really only three or four outstanding issues. Otherwise I'm going to ask for another reviewer's opinion. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

        Articles created/expanded on October 10

        Tribulation 99: Alien Anomalies Under America, Spectres of the Spectrum, Mock Up on Mu

        Craig Baldwin with his collection of films
        Craig Baldwin with his collection of films

        Created by Hinnk (talk). Self-nominated at 03:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC).

        • Symbol question.svg Two of these articles are new and are long enough, but Mock Up on Mu is an expansion. Unfortunately it is not long enough, having been expanded from 826 to 3482 characters, and will need to be over 4100 characters to qualify on length. The image is idiosyncratic and properly licensed and the hook facts are interesting and cited inline in each of the articles. The articles are neutral and I detected no copyright or close paraphrasing issues. For a three article hook you need three QPQ reviews. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Symbol delete vote.svg The nominator hasn't edited since last month, and has been unable to provide the requested two additional QPQs. I'd be willing to donate at least one if they do come back, but unless the hook and article issues are addressed soon, or the nominator returns soon, I'm marking this for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
        I'm also happy to donate a QPQ if needed, and would propose a two article hook to remove the one that is not 5x expanded.
        ALT1 - that the movies Tribulation 99: Alien Anomalies Under America and Spectres of the Spectrum were created out of found footage from the collection of Craig Baldwin (pictured)?
        Best, Mifter (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Note: Mock Up on Mu wouldn't have to be removed entirely from the original hook, it would just have to be unbolded, and its DYKmake credit removed. Is it helpful to retain it or not? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
        I don't think we lose too much by only mentioning the two movies but do not have a strong opinion either way. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
        I think out of respect for the nominator's wishes, we could stick to the original proposal, but with Mock Up on Mu unbolded. @BlueMoonset and Mifter: Would you be fine with this proposal, so that the nomination can move forward? In the interest of this moving forward, I'm donating Template:Did you know nominations/Slovak Three as a QPQ (I'm not sure if it counts since I wasn't the original reviewer, but merely one of those who gave a second opinion and later marked it for closure, so if this is disallowed, I'll provide another one). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
        Narutolovehinata5, I have no objections with using the original hook with Mock Up on Mu unbolded. I also think your donated QPQ will be fine, if for some reason its not, I'm also happy to done one. Best, Mifter Public (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

        Articles created/expanded on October 14

        Edgemere Landfill

        • ... that the Edgemere Landfill in New York City was claimed to be "the longest continuously operating dump in the United States", accepting waste from 1938 to 1991? Source: NY Times 1991. "Opened in 1938, Edgemere was the longest continuously operating dump in the United States and perhaps the oldest, the Sanitation Department says."
          • ALT1:... that food waste at New York City's Edgemere Landfill was shredded and poisoned to prevent birds from interfering with operations from nearby JFK Airport? Source: NY Times 1975. "Intensifying their campaign to minimize the bird‐strike hazard at Kennedy International Airport, local authorities have applied for permission to conduct a limited food‐poisoning experiment at a nearby garbage dump. They also are erecting a grid of horizontal wires over the disposal area, which is located at Edgemere in the Rockaways."
          • ALT2:... that the Edgemere Landfill was created because New York City parks commissioner Robert Moses wanted to develop the landfill as parkland? Source: Rockaway Wave. "An extensive landscape waterfront park is planned eventually for the property now being filled by the Department of Sanitation in Edgemere on the Jamaica Bay shore. The site is between Norton and Somerfleld basins north of Almeda avenue and was originally a part of the former state lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Marine and Aviation.""

        Created by Tdorante10 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 15:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC).

        Review

        Policy compliance:

        Hook eligiblity:

        • Cited: Red XN - Issues with all 3 hooks. The first hook cites a 1991 source which is too old for such a claim. The citation for ALT1 says that permission was applied for but not that it was granted and actioned. The citation for ALT2 doesn't mention Moses and his intentions.
        • Interesting: Red XN - All hooks have reasonable potential but would benefit from work to improve their impact.

        Image eligibility:

        QPQ: Done.

        Overall: Symbol question.svg I am interested in the topic, having written the article dirt which highlighted some other landfills. A lot of work has gone into this page and the authors' efforts are appreciated, Andrew D. (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

        @Andrew Davidson: Thanks for the review. For ALT0 and ALT1, how about this?
        • ALT0A: ... that when it closed in 1991, the Edgemere Landfill in New York City was claimed to be "the longest continuously operating dump in the United States", having accepted waste since 1938?
        • ALT1A: ... that officials proposed shredding and poisoning food waste at New York City's Edgemere Landfill to prevent birds from interfering with operations from nearby JFK Airport?
        For ALT2, Moses is mentioned in a later source. I think it's this one, where Moses remarks, "... lies the new Edgemere Park, the newest and largest park on the Rockaway peninsula. [...] When this area is filled and covered with manufactured topsoil, this park will be done. Eventually there will be an 18-hole golf course and marina together with passive a n d active play areas to care for the recreational needs of all ages in the housing and surrounding neighborhoods." There are other hooks I wanted to put in the article, but I forgot about them. I will do that tomorrow.
        As for quotes, all of them are cited. The "toxic landfill" quote, for example, is reference 6, two sentences up. I guess the source was placed at the end of the three sentences so it wouldn't be repeated. Other controversial quotes also have references, but they're just at the end of the sentences. I can fix them tomorrow (put the sources at the end of actual quotes) when I have access to an actual computer. I'd like to have an image in the hook. Maybe this might work? epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Ok, no rush. Just ping me when it's ready for another look, please. Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @Andrew Davidson: I've addressed the quote problem. How about the hooks above, or another hook: epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
          • ALT3: ...that New York City's Edgemere Landfill was declared a Superfund environmental cleanup site after nearly three thousand 55-gallon metal drums of waste were discovered during a routine excavation? Source: NY Daily News, 1987
          • ALT4: ...that Edgemere Landfill has been proposed for conversion to parkland since the 1950s, though a permanent structure on the site cannot be developed until 2021? Sources: (1) Rockaway Wave, 1958, Moses speech. (2) Rockaway Wave, 2000. "The site is reportedly being monitored and it will be only 21 more years (July, 2021) before a permanent structure can be erected on the site or before it can really be used for the Rockaway public park that has been marked on maps of the area for decades."
        Just my two cents, I like ALT3. Tdorante10 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
        @Epicgenius: I've been quite busy with other matters but will take another look now. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
        Hi

        Enclave law

        Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 09:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC).

        • Comment:This clearly not true as it applies to Palestinians as well for example minimum wage. --Shrike (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
        Your statement is incorrect. Per the source provided by Icewhiz below, "a 2008 high court ruling that Israeli labor laws apply to relations between Palestinian workers and Israeli employers in settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem". So Palestinians are not covered by these laws unless they are within the Israeli settlement enclaves. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
        • (ec) Hook issues - there are three issues with the hook. The first is that "Enclave law" is an informal term always or almost always scare-quoted in sources (including the source cited above) - there is no single "enclave law" - it is a very large amalgamation of legislation (that applies Israeli code, e.g. the income tax, on Israeli residents of the Area) and military orders (that extends Israeli legislation to areas under the military commander). Second - saying this "applies only to Israeli settlers" is incorrect - even per the simplistic source cited this also applies to Israeli settlements. For instance, Israeli labour law applies to Palestinian workers in settlements and industrial zones - e.g. And for the roughly 3,300 Palestinians who work in Barkan, the appeal is clear. They are treated equally in the workplace, earning the same salaries and benefits as their Israeli counterparts under Israeli law.NYT or Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011. Third - not all Israeli civil law applies - but large portions - see this source, for examples see - this and this for examples of legislation that do not apply. Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
        See amended version below, reflecting Icewhiz’s points. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
        I would suggest -
        The stmt of "only within Israeli settlements" is incorrect - e.g. Amira Hass who resides in Ramallah is liable for Israeli income tax (as well as other legislation (usually - obligations) applied to Israeli citizens in the area) as it applies to any income of an Israeli citizen in the Area (is also explicitly includes area A) - income tax code, clause 3A. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
        This is a good improvement, thanks. Two points:
        (1) Under your revised formulation of both Israeli residents and settlements, the word “only” can now be correctly added back.
        (2) I haven’t seen a source for the word “process” here, unless applied to the “pipelining” method discussed in the article. So we could say “through a process of pipelining of Enclave law...”
        Onceinawhile (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
        Point 1 - I would avoid "only", as it may be imprecise in other regards (e.g. some possible aspects of roads in area C come to mind) and I don't think it would clear with such wording that portions of Israeli law applies to Palestinians when they are in israeli settlements/zones. As for point 2 - I am not married to "process" (which is also somewhat imprecise) - however I do take issue with "Enclave laws" or "Enclave law" as an entity - there is no such entity at present and hasn't been - what there is (and one of the sources used "pipelining" for only one aspect of this - the military ordinances) is a hodgepodge of Israeli legislation applying obligations to Israeli citizens/residents in the area as well as military ordinances ("pipelines") applying copies of the Israeli law to areas under the authority of the military commander. Rubenstein (who is the original for this quote) described the resulting situation as "enclave law". "enclave law" refers to the situation created by the amalgamation of legislation - but not to the legislation itself (e.g. see the example I linked to from the tax law [17] - at a random point in 1978 the Knesset applied this specific bill to Israeli residents/citizens in the Area by adding a very small clause to bill (they then fixed this in 1994 to clarify the situation due to Oslo, and also updated following unrelated tax changes (e.g. the move from territorial taxation to worldwide personal taxation in 2002). On the VAT bill - [18] - they added a similar clause - but at a different random point in 1986 (and again, updated in 1994 due to Oslo). We could perhaps refer to a resulted in a situation of "Enclave Law" ? Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
        Lest I be accused of OR above - per Israeli police traffic enforcement guide (page 3 in the PDF) - enforcement in Area C vs. Palestinian citizens is exactly the same as in Israel with the exception of changing the law/ordinance name (פקודת התעבורה turns into צו בדבר התעבורה (יהודה ושומרון) - and "תקנות התעבורה" turns into "תקנות התעבורה (יהודה ושומרון)" - however clause numbering is the same. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
        OK. Your “resulted in” formulation would require a restructuring of the sentence - do you have something in mind? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
        How about -
        ALT1 ... that Amnon Rubinstein coined the term "Enclave law" to describe the application of large portions of Israeli civil law to Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian territories?
        ALT2 ... that the term "Enclave law" has heen used to describe the application of large portions of Israeli civil law to Israelis and Israeli settlements in the West Bank?
        The first follows the description in ACRI of what Rubenstein wrote in 87. The second is more contemporary.Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
        Either fine with me. It would be nice to end ALT1 with "in place of the word apartheid", using the two sources at the bottom of the article, but something tells me you might object to that!
        A DYK reviewer is best placed to decide between the two options. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
        Tying in Jeff Halper's or Jonathan Cook's opinions onto Rubenstein would be a BLP issue vs. Rubenstein. Both are probably undue in the article regardless. But I'm happy we're at agreement regarding the hook.Icewhiz (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

        Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

        Symbol possible vote.svg Currently, there is an outstanding merge proposal and multiple cleanup tags in the article. Given the sensitivity of the topic, strongly recommend resolving them before asking for another review. Catrìona (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
        @Catrìona: Hi Catriona, the clean up is now complete. The merge proposal did not gain consensus, and the tags have been resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
        General eligiblity:
        • New Enough: Green tickY
        • Long Enough: Red XN - Slightly over required 1500 characters readable prose, but I would consider this a stub. It just doesn't give much information.
        QPQ: Done.

        Overall: Symbol question.svg Striking rejected hooks. Strongly recommend against the word "apartheid" which is highly/unecessarily controversial, even in terms of an analogy. Should it be "Enclave law" or "enclave law"? Catrìona (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

        Thank you Catrìona. I think lower case is better. Per readable prose, I will lengthen it from the sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
        Please note the ongoing discussion at Talk:Enclave_law#Concept_vs_terminology_-_source_dispute. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
        Symbol question.svg - Onceinawhile, given that the article has been moved to Israeli law in the West Bank settlements, please propose updated or new hooks that incorporate the new name. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
        alt1 and alt2 updated/trimmed -
        1. ALT3 ... that Amnon Rubinstein coined the term "enclave law" to describe Israeli law in the West Bank settlements?
        2. ALT4 ... that the term "enclave law" has heen used to describe Israeli law in the West Bank settlements?
        Icewhiz (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
        I support either of these proposal. I would like to suggest that

        Joseph Jagger

        Joseph Jagger
        Joseph Jagger

        Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk) and Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 21:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

        Review

        Policy compliance:

        • Adequate sourcing: Red XN - Fletcher's book seems to be the most thoroughly researched but is not used for the inline citations. The other sources seem weaker and so details like the year of the bank-breaking isn't clear. Fletcher has a family heirloom with an inscription which is dated 1884 and says that he took four years to do this. I reckon we should be using the best source more to clarify such issues.
        • Neutral: Green tickY
        • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Green tickY

        Hook eligiblity:

        • Cited: Green tickY
        • Interesting: Green tickY
        • Other problems: Red XN - The hook shouldn't link to the song because it seems unlikely that Jagger was the inspiration for the song. A better link would be to men who broke the bank at Monte Carlo, which explains the concept (and which also needs updating to include Jagger). I'll set this up as ALT1 for clarity.
        QPQ: Done.

        Overall: Symbol question.svg It's a good story and I'm tempted to get Fletcher's book myself to read more. Perhaps we can share a copy at the meetup? Has someone ordered it yet? Andrew D. (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

        I don't have Fletcher's book, and haven't ordered it. The main source for the article is the piece in The Times which was clearly drawn from Fletcher's book, so I took that to be the most authoritative source for the year 1881 as I thought she and The Times must be right. There are multiple earlier sources that give slightly different years for the event, including Brewers, but I took them all to be less reliable than the recent biography. We could certainly get the book and someone should but that might have to wait until the article is expanded to GA. As The Times clearly drew their article from Fletcher's book, I feel the sourcing is reasonable at this stage. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

        My apologies if I am not using this page correctly. I have just edited the Joseph Jagger page as I am the author of a newly published biography of him. I have changed some points that are factually wrong according to my research and I have cited my book as the source of key facts rather than The Times journalist who interviewed me. I hope that does not infringe marketing policies? I wanted the source to be as accurate as possible but don't want it to seem like self-promotion. And thank you for the very nice comments here about my book!I hope that the changes are acceptable Anne C Fletcher (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Anne Fletcher, author From the Mill to MOnte Carlo


        Articles created/expanded on October 17

        Neo-Bechstein

        Created by Scope creep (talk). Self-nominated at 03:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC).

        • Symbol possible vote.svg--
        • Plagiarisation and Close paraphrasing is very-evident.
        • semi-acoustic instrument, with the sound being generated in the traditional way by striking strings is copied in toto from the source.
        • Although having no sound board, it was much lighter is copied in toto from the source.
        • Original research
        • Usage of the words:-- micro-hammer, eighteen microphones et cetera.
        • Many lines are un-sourced. They are (probably) sourced in some of the references but as much as inline cites are not required, it's optimum to use them.
        • Prose form is quite poor.
        • The Construction section starts with:--The was semi-acoustic instrument which is meaningless.
        • The Marketing section again starts with:-- Bechstein reportedly built 150 copies of which exist today which is meaningless.The same can be said about the last line:-- and was restored in 2007 at the technical Museum Vienna ready to play and is used for concert purposes.
        • The entire paragraph reads like a marketing brochure of the piano (viz The stop has been refined by the micro pounding...., This avoids the knocking noise...... et al).A lot trivial details ( that typically hit the string at a force of 5%....) are noted.
        • Additionally, the term neo-petrof is used out of nowhere and is not even wiki-linked/ explained at a foot-note.
        • I have no idea about the 4th source.
        • This can be improved, quite a lot.Use the press-reviews and exploit the many rigorous sources which mention it, without getting bogged down into trivialities.And above all, copy-edit whatever you have written till now. (I will try to invest my own efforts, if possible:-) )
        • On a note, I have not even bothered to find out about QPQ:-)WBGconverse 07:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
        Thanks WBG. That was bit of a wake up call. I never realised it was so bad. Thanks. Is it possible to take each in turn,
        • I can get rid of the plagiarism by rewording.
        • Regarding mirco hammer, I took this from the image, No. 5, mikrohammer. I thought that would be self evident. I have explained mechanics.
        • The stop has been refined by the micro pounding, technical detail of the first electric piano.
        • 5% was what made it unique, and its mentioned in a few sources. Explained.
        • I have reordered it and tried to address the points raised. scope_creep (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
        • QPQ doesnt seem to apply, as this is my first DYK. scope_creep (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @Winged Blades of Godric: @Scope creep: What is the status of this nomination? It has been one month since the nominator's last post. I glanced at the page and see just a block of text. Subheads are the first thing needed. You may wish to apply for copyediting help at WP:GOCE. Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Yoninah I think this DYK can probably be closed. I submitted it far too early. I started the article very late at night when I was sleeping, and submitted it, when it still needed a lot of work. user:Winged Blades of Godric came in, reviewed the DYK and rewrote the article, which I thought was nice and really cool and I copy-edited later, and later still added sections as requested. I don't think DYK is for me, as I tend to take some time to create an article, usually months, e.g. Platt Report 1959. Thanks. Please close this. scope_creep (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
        • @Scope creep: actually, with your reorganization, the article looks in better shape now. I'd like to re-review it in a little while, as it seems Winged Blades of Godric has recused himself by rewriting the article. I have added him to the DYK co-credits. Yoninah (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
        ok scope_creep (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
      Original: Original:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know